They were tremendously arrogant with the initial reveal and expected people to just bend over and take highly restrictive DRM policies, but arguing this with the forum's resident Microsoft fanboy isn't really worth my time.

They were tremendously arrogant with the initial reveal and expected people to just bend over and take highly restrictive DRM policies, but arguing this with the forum's resident Microsoft fanboy isn't really worth my time.

I think it would have been arrogant not to change it, at least they saw sense. Making a mistake and rectifying it is a good thing usually.

I think it would have been arrogant not to change it, at least they saw sense. Making a mistake and rectifying it is a good thing usually.

Not to fix it would have been suicide and possibly caused irreparable damage to the Xbox brand.

I'm not saying fixing it was a bad thing, I'm just challenging the ridiculous notion that doing it showed humility or anything of the like. It didn't. It was about survival. And even with fixing the DRM issues, they have not backtracked on integrated Kinect, a higher price-tag and inferior hardware.

Not to fix it would have been suicide and possibly caused irreparable damage to the Xbox brand.

I'm not saying fixing it was a bad thing, I'm just challenging the ridiculous notion that doing it showed humility or anything of the like. It didn't. It was about survival. And even with fixing the DRM issues, they have not backtracked on integrated Kinect, a higher price-tag and inferior hardware.

The xbox division isn't profitable and could be under threat if Bill Gates goes so they have try and please those who will decide their fate - the consumers!

And even with fixing the DRM issues, they have not backtracked on integrated Kinect, a higher price-tag and inferior hardware.

Not entirely true: They upped the clock speed and Kinect is no longer mandatory.

Either Microsoft doesn't have inferior hardware, or Sony has incredibly inferior development talent, because most games look and play better on Xbox One (including both exclusives and multiplatform releases). DICE has called the Xbox One version of Battlefield 4 the "definitive" version, while hands-on previews have noted its surprisingly poor performance on PS4. Likewise, PS4 owners will not be able to enjoy Call of Duty: Ghosts with dedicated servers, and they'll have to wait for DLC. Xbox One has exclusive content for EA games, for example dozens of exclusive players in FIFA. Titanfall is exclusive for the simple fact that PS4 can't run it. As Edge Magazine noted, "Even a second-tier title like Ryse makes a stronger case for its host hardware's graphical capabilities, at least, than anything set for PS4's launch day"--while their story about PS4 being "40-50% more powerful" (according to anonymous developers who refused to go on the record, contradicting respected luminaries like John Carmack who have noted no such disparity) was much praised by Sony zealots who never read past the headline, the rest of the article contained fine print like "The difference between cross platform launch window games will be small, and improved graphics drivers plus the power of the cloud might yet tip the balance in Xbox One’s favour"!

The supposed vast disparity between these two systems is just another spectacular propaganda hoax from Sony--like PS2's "Toy Story 2-quality graphics" that could "render individual grains of wood in a door," and Ken Kuturagi's claim in 2000 that "You can communicate to a new cyber city. This will be the ideal home server. Did you see the movie 'The Matrix'? Same interface. Same concept. Starting from next year, you can jack into 'The Matrix'!'' (Yet they didn't even release a Network Adapter until late 2002, while the Dreamcast came with a modem and had broadband before the PS2 launch, and the Xbox came with a Network Adapter out of the box.) Why do you think there is so much commentary about this supposed "power gap", when it is not apparent in any game and both consoles’ graphics drivers will continue to improve? They are more closely comparable than any two machines in history, and yet the media seems content regurgitating Sony press releases.

Sony's superior PR is why, even though there is only a 6% difference between the number of 360s that have failed and the number of PS3s that have failed, the media gave vastly disproportionate coverage to the Red Ring of Death versus the Yellow Light of Death (and PS2's infamous "Disc Read Error" was swept under the rug). When PS4 owners, like PS3 owners, realize Sony lied to them; most will prompty blame the evil American capitalists at Microsoft for "holding back" multiplatform games via bribery, even though strict deadlines and tight budgets inherently favor parity, and many big multiplatform titles are plainly superior on Xbox One.

Not entirely true: They upped the clock speed and Kinect is no longer mandatory.

Either Microsoft doesn't have inferior hardware, or Sony has incredibly inferior development talent, because most games look and play better on Xbox One (including both exclusives and multiplatform releases). DICE has called the Xbox One version of Battlefield 4 the "definitive" version, while hands-on previews have noted its surprisingly poor performance on PS4. Likewise, PS4 owners will not be able to enjoy Call of Duty: Ghosts with dedicated servers, and they'll have to wait for DLC. Xbox One has exclusive content for EA games, for example dozens of exclusive players in FIFA. Titanfall is exclusive for the simple fact that PS4 can't run it. As Edge Magazine noted, "Even a second-tier title like Ryse makes a stronger case for its host hardware's graphical capabilities, at least, than anything set for PS4's launch day"--while their story about PS4 being "40-50% more powerful" (according to anonymous developers who refused to go on the record, contradicting respected luminaries like John Carmack who have noted no such disparity) was much praised by Sony zealots who never read past the headline, the rest of the article contained fine print like "The difference between cross platform launch window games will be small, and improved graphics drivers plus the power of the cloud might yet tip the balance in Xbox One’s favour"!

The supposed vast disparity between these two systems is just another spectacular propaganda hoax from Sony--like PS2's "Toy Story 2-quality graphics" that could "render individual grains of wood in a door," and Ken Kuturagi's claim in 2000 that "You can communicate to a new cyber city. This will be the ideal home server. Did you see the movie 'The Matrix'? Same interface. Same concept. Starting from next year, you can jack into 'The Matrix'!'' (Yet they didn't even release a Network Adapter until late 2002, while the Dreamcast came with a modem and had broadband before the PS2 launch, and the Xbox came with a Network Adapter out of the box.) Why do you think there is so much commentary about this supposed "power gap", when it is not apparent in any game and both consoles’ graphics drivers will continue to improve? They are more closely comparable than any two machines in history, and yet the media seems content regurgitating Sony press releases.

PS4 can't run Titanfall? Are you been serious? It's based on Valves source engine!! Its been around for a long long time!

They aren't saying it can't run something - far from it. Their just saying it suits the X1 which is hardly surprising considering its Windows Heritage. At the moment on paper the Xboxone does not have a a spec to beat sonys machine. Your confusing Microsoft throwing money at developers for exclusive content with having better games.

If BF4 comes out and it isn't very good (again possible misinformation spread by MS similar to Sonys "we're more powerful" blurb) then I won't be upgrading from the PS3 version. I'll be checking the digital foundry breakdown as I have the option to go with the PC version - which CAN run at 1080p 60FPS UNLIKE the Xboxone which is stuck at 720p.

"The next-gen mech shooter Titanfall would not be possible without Microsoft’s Xbox One cloud services, according to Respawn Entertainment engineer Jon Shiring. The cloud is tied into Microsoft’s controversial online policies for the new console, and it’s been the subject of confusion and ire from gamers. Shiring took to Respawn’s blog to explain the benefits from a developer’s perspective.

According to Shiring, Microsoft’s dedicated servers are the perfect solution to a long-standing problem. Console games with online multiplayer aspects typically use player-hosted servers because dedicated servers are expensive and tough to implement, but dedicated servers offer a superior experience. Microsoft’s dedicated cloud servers allow Respawn to implement more and better AI, physics, and environments, eliminate the “host advantage” that plagues many online games, thwart some forms of cheating, boost matchmaking speeds, eliminate the need to pause the game when the host player quits, and improve visuals and audio by taking full advantage of the console hardware and leaving other tasks to the cloud processors.

The cloud services aren’t limited to Xbox One games either, and Respawn uses them for the Windows PC and Xbox 360 versions of Titanfall as well. Respawn approached both Sony and Microsoft about this problem, and Microsoft was the one to implement a solution, Shiring writes."

"The next-gen mech shooter Titanfall would not be possible without Microsoft’s Xbox One cloud services, according to Respawn Entertainment engineer Jon Shiring. The cloud is tied into Microsoft’s controversial online policies for the new console, and it’s been the subject of confusion and ire from gamers. Shiring took to Respawn’s blog to explain the benefits from a developer’s perspective.

According to Shiring, Microsoft’s dedicated servers are the perfect solution to a long-standing problem. Console games with online multiplayer aspects typically use player-hosted servers because dedicated servers are expensive and tough to implement, but dedicated servers offer a superior experience. Microsoft’s dedicated cloud servers allow Respawn to implement more and better AI, physics, and environments, eliminate the “host advantage” that plagues many online games, thwart some forms of cheating, boost matchmaking speeds, eliminate the need to pause the game when the host player quits, and improve visuals and audio by taking full advantage of the console hardware and leaving other tasks to the cloud processors.

The cloud services aren’t limited to Xbox One games either, and Respawn uses them for the Windows PC and Xbox 360 versions of Titanfall as well. Respawn approached both Sony and Microsoft about this problem, and Microsoft was the one to implement a solution, Shiring writes."

If it does come to PS4, expect it to be noticeably inferior.

You have equated that all wrong.

See, it is not possible for my car to run without fuel. But fuel is not exclusive to my car manufacturer.

And so Titanfall would 'not be possible' without the cloud services, but those cloud services are not exclusive to Microsoft.

They're just saying that if we didn't utilise the cloud we couldn't have done some of the things we wanted to do in the game. They're not saying 'this game is only on Xbox One because we wanted to use cloud features and it is not possible to use cloud stuff on the PlayStation 4 and so therefore it is impossible for Titanfall to be on a PlayStation 4 or any other platform'.

If Titanfall performs well the sequel will be on PlayStation 4. Vince said that they limited themselves on platforms because they were a new company with very limited resource, that is why the 360 version has been outsourced.

Indeed they started out with a very small team, it would be beyond expectations to expect them to put out a game on every platform during a console transition.

The same goes for dedicated servers. These are not exclusive to one platform, have been used for years - including both current gen consoles. So there's nothing new in those.

At the moment on paper the Xboxone does not have a a spec to beat sonys machine.

O rly? How about Voxel based ray tracying? And the CPU and audio is clearly superior on paper.

Titanfall is heavily reliant upon the dedicated servers and Microsoft Azure for AI, which is the main reason (according to the devs) it's not coming to PS4 as it stands right now. Sony haven't given any indication they are are serious about moving away from P2P.

They were tremendously arrogant with the initial reveal and expected people to just bend over and take highly restrictive DRM policies,

Part on me always wondered if Sony were going to try and push things down a very similar route to Microsoft but saw the reaction they received and quickly changed there policy, but I guess I'll probably never know.

I can't really take polls too seriously, no matter how many people they ask, it's still only a fraction of the people buying next gen consoles. Though I am suprised the poll was done in NA, I always assume that's Xbox territory. I think both consoles will do well at launch, the real competition in my eyes comes a year or so down the line when the consoles have been released in all territories and with thier full functions in place. As it stands Xbox 1 will only have it's TV functionality working in NA at launch. And Sony aren't going to be properly streaming with Gaikai untill next year. Once that's all in place, with a bigger catologue of games, we can properly look at which console is doing best.